Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:23581 comp.unix.questions:24946 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!ulysses!swfc From: swfc@ulysses.att.com (Shu-Wie F Chen) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Hard links vs. Soft links Message-ID: <13646@ulysses.att.com> Date: 23 Aug 90 13:59:46 GMT References: <1084.26d2a42b@desire.wright.edu> Sender: netnews@ulysses.att.com Reply-To: swfc@ulysses.att.com (Shu-Wie F Chen) Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Lines: 39 In article <1084.26d2a42b@desire.wright.edu>, anagram@desire.wright.edu ((For Mongo)) writes: |>What is the difference between a hard link and a soft link? Besides the fact |>that a hard link seems to make a copy of the file, while the soft link just ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A hard link associates another file name to a file. It does *not* make a copy. |>points the OS to the real file. In broader terms, my question is this: I have |>a Tektronix 4301 that has the commands ls, ll, lf, lg, and lx, all of which are |>derivatives or ls. They are all the same size, and they are all linked |>together. When I had a system error and all the links were destroyes, I |>deleted them all, except ls, and re-linked them using soft links. I saved |>about a quarter of a meg of disk-space. I have come across some other files |>that are the same way, and am wondering how much space I can save, compared to |>how much system performance I will lose. Can anyone tell me how soft links vs. |>hard links will affect system performance. The -i option to ls tells you the inode of the file associated with each file name (note the distinction between file and file name). You might want to do a ls -i to see what is really going on. On a side note, you might want to alias ll, lf, lg, and lx to 'ls -xxx' instead of keeping separate binaries. For instance, I have ll aliased to ls -lasF. |> |>Thanks, |>Steve P Potter |>Systems Manager |>Mission Research Corp You're welcome. *swfc